Uses for ex-Grand Central Mk4s?

[MatthewRead]

I liked the idea of sending them to Scotrail they could take over the Fife circle services entirely and release DMU's Scotrail did issue a tender for new rolling stock for the Fife Circle well there you go.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Converting Mark 4s to vacuum brakes probably isn't a low cost alternative for that part of the market. The margins on charter operations are unlikely to be large.

Vacuum brake really isn’t a requirement for charter stock any more. There’s only a small handful of vac-only steam locos which require vac-fitted stock. There’s plenty of air-only vehicles already in use with the various charter operators.

 

[James Kevill]

The Mark 4 Coaches could be used on the London King's Cross to Sunderland and Bradford Interchange the diesel loco hauled services

 

[DB]

The Mark 4 Coaches could be used on the London King's Cross to Sunderland and Bradford Interchange the diesel loco hauled services

Hauled by what? Given the long stretches of ECML it would require a diesel loco able and permitted to do 125mph and capable of supplying standard ETS- and such a thing doesn't exist!

 

[ABB125]

Hauled by what? Given the long stretches of ECML it would require a diesel loco able and permitted to do 125mph and capable of supplying standard ETS- and such a thing doesn't exist!

Back to what I suggested upthread: class 90/91 on one end, class 67 on the other!
Job done, bimode train for much less than a class 800

Maybe I should go into consultancy...

 

[Townsend Hook]

Hauled by what? Given the long stretches of ECML it would require a diesel loco able and permitted to do 125mph and capable of supplying standard ETS- and such a thing doesn't exist!

The only possible option which I can see would be 67s running top and tail; 7000bhp should be plenty for reasonable acceleration up to 125mph while supplying hotel power. I can’t see, however, that such a set-up would have many advantages over 180s.

 

[DB]

Back to what I suggested upthread: class 90/91 on one end, class 67 on the other!
Job done, bimode train for much less than a class 800

Maybe I should go into consultancy...

So two locos to hire and expensive modifications to make as they can't work in multiple...

Suspect this may not be top of GC's list of things to do!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2020 ==

The only possible option which I can see would be 67s running top and tail; 7000bhp should be plenty for reasonable acceleration up to 125mph while supplying hotel power. I can’t see, however, that such a set-up would have many advantages over 180s.

But they can't do 125mph - although theoretically capable, they were banned from going over 110 after initial testing showed how heavy an impact they had on the track at higher speeds.

Note also that the only brake vehicle Mk4s are the DVTs, so they would probably need to waste space by having one of them in the formation.

 

[ABB125]

If class 67s and 91s can't work together, how did East Coast diverts via (for example) the Tyne Valley work (genuine question)? My idea doesn't really need both locomotives to power at the same time anyway, use electric as far as Northallerton (assuming the Sunderland services call there), then diesel beyond, where the somewhat stately class 67s wouldn't cause much of a performance issue.

 

[Townsend Hook]

But they can't do 125mph - although theoretically capable, they were banned from going over 110 after initial testing showed how heavy an impact they had on the track at higher speeds.

In that case, I guess it’ll have to be the daft idea being bandied around for EMR a while back, using HST power cars with some kind of generator/converter installed in the luggage vans to provide ETS power.

N.B.: I am really not saying that this is in any way sensible or practical.

 

[DB]

If class 67s and 91s can't work together, how did East Coast diverts via (for example) the Tyne Valley work (genuine question)? My idea doesn't really need both locomotives to power at the same time anyway, use electric as far as Northallerton (assuming the Sunderland services call there), then diesel beyond, where the somewhat stately class 67s wouldn't cause much of a performance issue.

Stick it on the front and drag, then take it off again at the end. The 91 was just dead in the train, and the 67 always had to be on the front as there was no way to control the 67 from the 91, or vice versa (or control the 67 from the DVT). The 67 would suply the ETS power, but other than that would have no electrical connections to the train.

The DVTs which have gone to Wales have been modified so that they can use the AAR multiple-working system, which is what the 67s use.

 

[ABB125]

Stick it on the front and drag, then take it off again at the end. The 91 was just dead in the train, and the 67 always had to be on the front as there was no way to control the 67 from the 91, or vice versa. The 67 would suply the ETS power, but other than that would have no electrical connections to the train.

Ok, thanks

 

[Ianno87]

Stick it on the front and drag, then take it off again at the end. The 91 was just dead in the train, and the 67 always had to be on the front as there was no way to control the 67 from the 91, or vice versa (or control the 67 from the DVT). The 67 would suply the ETS power, but other than that would have no electrical connections to the train.

The DVTs which have gone to Wales have been modified so that they can use the AAR multiple-working system, which is what the 67s use.

Also not clear whether Mk4s would be gauged all the way to Bradford. (Sunderland route has had diversions so in theory would be OK)

Also, good luck with finding platform capacity for adding/detaching locos.

 

[DB]

Also not clear whether Mk4s would be gauged all the way to Bradford. (Sunderland route has had diversions so in theory would be OK)

Yes that's true - but as regards Sunderland, wasn't there some rule about AC electrics having to have the pantograph physically tied down in order to be allowed under the Metro wires?

 

[bussikuski179]

If they were to go somewhere, it’d be TfW. I would like to see them go to Chiltern though, as they’re newer than the Mk3s, and if their loco-hauled stock is newer they can keep running the service a bit longer.

 

[DB]

If they were to go somewhere, it’d be TfW. I would like to see them go to Chiltern though, as they’re newer than the Mk3s, and if their loco-hauled stock is newer they can keep running the service a bit longer.

Why would TfW want them? They already have the Mk4s they intended to have, and although they don't seem to have done a refurbishement yet, they must have spent money on them (e.g. through wiring so that locos and DVTs can communicate). Recently tarted-up ones in another operator's livery wouldn't be an incentive.

Chiltern's Mk3s had a lot spent on them a few years ago and are fine for continued use. They retain one slam-door set, but that's for very specific use. Plus Mk4s cannot work with 68s without modifications (through-wiring, and AAR fitment to DVTs). Plus route clearance. Plus lease costs (the Mk3s, except the current slam-door set, are owned outright by Arriva). And the franchise is coming towards its end date. Why would they bother to change?

This thread does seem to be a long list of unrealistic suggestions. Simple fact is that a good few Mk4s have recently been scrapped, and I'm not sure what stronger indication there could be that nobody wants them! The fact that these have new carpets, seat covers and paint in another operator's livery is hardly going to make any operator think that they must have some Mk4s!

Incidentally, have all of the sets actually been done? And have all of the intended 90s been painted (and overhauled if necessary)? Last list I saw had three of the intended five 90s shown as having had been painted.

 

[43096]

The Mark 4 Coaches could be used on the London King's Cross to Sunderland and Bradford Interchange the diesel loco hauled services

To which the 180s are far more suited.

Good to see a proper crayon session going on in here, though!

 

[Ianno87]

To which the 180s are far more suited.

Good to see a proper crayon session going on in here, though!

"Obvious" thing to do would be new / cascaded 80x variants once the 180s have run their course.

I doubt in the current climate the costs of new/replacement stock (plus the training etc that goes with it) are going to be high on GC's list of priorities (rather than,.say, getting a profitable service established again)

 

[crablab]

They're scrap. The cost of new seat covers and paint is incidental compared to the cost of any kind of electrical/mechanical modification.

Plus, as has been mentioned again and again, no one wants them otherwise they'd have already got some before the first lot ended up on the scrapheap!

 

[DB]

"Obvious" thing to do would be new / cascaded 80x variants once the 180s have run their course.

Or indeed some other simialr unit, depending on what is available when it eventually happens!

Seems highly unlikely that GC will be dispensing with the 180s any time soon though - the last thing they will want is additional costs at the moment.

 

[swt_passenger]

I liked the idea of sending them to Scotrail they could take over the Fife circle services entirely and release DMU's Scotrail did issue a tender for new rolling stock for the Fife Circle well there you go.

But wasn’t the complete silence regarding that tender a sign that such stock is no longer needed or wanted? I’m pretty sure it’s no longer on anyone’s agenda.

 

[Energy]

I liked the idea of sending them to Scotrail they could take over the Fife circle services entirely and release DMU's Scotrail did issue a tender for new rolling stock for the Fife Circle well there you go.

The mk4s looked likely for Fife but they decided to keep some 170s instead which is a better choice for them IMO. I remember hearing that lots of the sprinter routes couldn't take 170s anyway.

 

[popeter45]

would potentially need to regear a class 92 for 90/100 mph and/or upgrade the power on the brighton mainline but for a old style gatwick express (e.g. with a dedicated luggage car) mark 4's + 92 or 73 could work quite nicely

 

[4-SUB 4732]

TfW will have 3 x 4 car rakes. GC would be 5 x 6 car rakes. That's 38 vehicles in total, across 8 rakes. Can you make 6 x 5 car and 2 x 4 car rakes, all powered by 67s, and therefore use them on a combination of North Wales - South Wales (2 x 4 car, with full restaurant); and then the rest working on the Llandudno / Holyhead - Manchester Airport circuit?

I reckon there's 6 diagrams solely on Llandudno - Manchester Airport, so add in some Holyhead bits, and then you've potentially only got one or two unit diagrams overall on the entire North Wales - Manchester route which can be made to work only at off-peak times, meaning you'll have wonderful 5-car rakes turning up on the Castlefield corridor at peak, spreading passengers beautifully. De-clutter the doorways and you're laughing (e.g. take out a couple of seats and give that circulating space).

 

[Journeyman]

would potentially need to regear a class 92 for 90/100 mph and/or upgrade the power on the brighton mainline but for a old style gatwick express (e.g. with a dedicated luggage car) mark 4's + 92 or 73 could work quite nicely

Oh, don't be ridiculous!

 

[DB]

TfW will have 3 x 4 car rakes. GC would be 5 x 6 car rakes. That's 38 vehicles in total, across 8 rakes. Can you make 6 x 5 car and 2 x 4 car rakes, all powered by 67s, and therefore use them on a combination of North Wales - South Wales (2 x 4 car, with full restaurant); and then the rest working on the Llandudno / Holyhead - Manchester Airport circuit?

I reckon there's 6 diagrams solely on Llandudno - Manchester Airport, so add in some Holyhead bits, and then you've potentially only got one or two unit diagrams overall on the entire North Wales - Manchester route which can be made to work only at off-peak times, meaning you'll have wonderful 5-car rakes turning up on the Castlefield corridor at peak, spreading passengers beautifully. De-clutter the doorways and you're laughing (e.g. take out a couple of seats and give that circulating space).

TfW have already decided how many sets they want. Sorry to repeat this yet again, but Mk4s have been going for scrap - if they wanted more sets they could have had them already.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

TfW have already decided how many sets they want. Sorry to repeat this yet again, but Mk4s have been going for scrap - if they wanted more sets they could have had them already.

However in this case, the refurbishment and bodywork is done, causing the ROSCO to need to recoup money. I have no doubt they will give a good price.

Other threads report TfW have not ordered enough Civity traction, this is an ideal solution. Especially if based on the North Wales Coast, as maintenance will all be based out of Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However in this case, the refurbishment and bodywork is done, causing the ROSCO to need to recoup money. I have no doubt they will give a good price.

Other threads report TfW have not ordered enough Civity traction, this is an ideal solution. Especially if based on the North Wales Coast, as maintenance will all be based out of Crewe.

Would it be enough to allow all North Wales Coast "IC" services to be Mk4s? That would have considerable advantages.

 

[DB]

However in this case, the refurbishment and bodywork is done, causing the ROSCO to need to recoup money. I have no doubt they will give a good price.

Other threads report TfW have not ordered enough Civity traction, this is an ideal solution. Especially if based on the North Wales Coast, as maintenance will all be based out of Crewe.

I don't know how much they actually did to the bodywork - they were in reasonable condition anyway. Internally it looks, from photos I've seen, to have been carpets and seat covers. And TfW will in due course want them in their own livery, which would entail a repaint, carpets and seat covers, so there's really nothing gained. They didn't decide not to have more sets on the basis that those coming from LNER might need a bit of a tart up! (and actually, the LNER interiors are still fine).

If they do need more trains, far more likely that they will just keep some of those due to go off-lease.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Would it be enough to allow all North Wales Coast "IC" services to be Mk4s? That would have considerable advantages.

As up the thread I felt that with some Holyhead additions, it would need probably two unit diagrams. That said, if Civity traction is operating across Wales, you would need them to do a couple of odd diagrams on the Coast (where the key driver is the North Wales - Manchester) to keep crew knowledge up and make sure depots at Holyhead and Llandudno keep their hand in.

 

[JonathanH]

However in this case, the refurbishment and bodywork is done, causing the ROSCO to need to recoup money. I have no doubt they will give a good price.

Again, there is a cost consideration for the ROSCO. They may try to tout the coaches but in the likely event of there being no takers, the coaches have no value to them other than scrap and they will have to cut their losses and get the money back from leasing their other stock. There is likely to be some sort of exit payment from Grand Central in any case.